Games PMs Play

 

Psychiatrist Eric Berne’s best-selling book Games People Play (Grove Press, 1964) had a profound impact on the way many people tended to evaluate the behavior of others. After introducing his theories on “Transactional Analysis,” Berne goes on to describe three dozen “games,” which are essentially attempts by those “playing” them to engineer circumstances and manipulate people into recreating scenarios that would lead to an anticipated emotional payoff. My main takeaway from the book is that, while such “games” are almost certainly being played, the hoped-for payoff is perhaps a bit more nuanced. I think the power of the sought-after payoff from the game can be divided into one of two bins: people so engaged are either trying to (a) reproduce the conditions of a previous, traumatic failure, in order to set it right by now making the “correct” decision(s) and escape the regret attached to that episode in their lives, or else (b) are recreating the conditions of a previous victory, confident that their earlier choices will once again produce successful results, along with the emotional reward that comes with it.

Meanwhile, Back In The Project Management World…

Translating Berne into a business model vernacular, we get a perfectly acceptable mode of behavior and operating: people influencing Team members and circumstances to implement a specific management strategy, with the anticipated payoff of a successful project. This person is either (a) using a business model known to have failed in its previous iteration, but will now succeed due to some key changes or modifications, or else (b) recycling a business model known to work in an analogous situation. Now, that all having been stipulated, I believe that there are Berne-like “games,” or canned, go-to strategies that many PMs employ in situations where they are clearly inappropriate, yet the playing PM is convinced that they are on-track for an economic, emotional, or even power payoff at the strategy’s conclusion. In Games People Play, Berne used clever titles (“Let’s you and him fight;” “If it weren’t for you;” “Wooden Leg”) for his games. Since he’s waayyy smarter than I am, I’ll employ the same technique.

“My Black Box: None Other!” In this game, the PM changes or introduces a new software platform that will be performing the project management-oriented cost and schedule performance analysis, specifically the Critical Path and/or Earned Value Methodology software, though sometimes this could include a system that pretends to function as a performance analyzer, but isn’t. In this latter category, so-called “action item trackers” are common. Nominally, this isn’t an issue, but can quickly become highly problematic when such choices are based not on an even-handed analysis of the best fit for the current PMO, but on previous experiences with projects that really have nothing at all to do with the existing organization or scope. The game proceeds as the PM procures the preferred software, installs it on the Project Team members’ computers, arranges for training, fires the metaphoric starting pistol, and then…nothing significant happens. Sure, he’ll get his project reports in his preferred format(s), but no noticeable change occurs in actual project performance. The PM playing the MBBNO game will then blame the members of the Project Team for not implementing this preferred “solution” correctly, making it appear that others are responsible for any failures.

“Assign Easy Work To Favorites, Impossible Work To Scapegoats.” The title of AEWTFIWTS pretty much says it all, but it’s worth examining, if for no other reason than to recognize when it’s happening within your PMO. If the PMO is more concerned with advancing certain favored people rather than maximizing the number of projects being brought in on-time, on-budget, then it will behave in such a way as to protect the reputations of those people at the expense of performing well with the more difficult scope. Truly talented PMs, when handed problematic projects, will often demonstrate their ability by bringing in disaster-headed work to marginally acceptable results, whereas the being-carried PMs will have the same results with rather simple scope to execute. If the entire portfolio appears to be performing at a just-acceptable level, the head of the PMO may be engaged in this game.

“Now I’ve Got You, You (Very Bad Term).” This is a derivative of one of Dr. Berne’s games, but in this case it involves a scenario where a genuinely talented PM is being overly scrutinized by colleagues to see if she violates any of the rules laid out in procedures or policy documents. Almost always carried out by the Maccoby archetypes of Company Man and Jungle Fighter, the ones playing this game aren’t as interested in actual project success as they are in maintaining a highly controlled hierarchy. If NIGYYVBT is being played in your organization, the very latitude of action the Project Teams need to succeed is being curtailed, and it’s not because those doing the scrutinizing have overall portfolio success as their objective.

Now, if any member of GTIM Nation is tempted to tape a hard copy of this blog on an offending manager’s door, I would advise against it. The three games I reviewed are just the tip of the iceberg, and there’s another little game out there I refer to as “We Only Pretend To Encourage Open Communications.”